Coercive and top-down approaches to political control in Guyana have proved counterproductive with respect to resolving ethno-political conflicts in the country. Yet, can such seemingly intractable conflicts be resolved?
This article in the Journal of Peace Research explores the sources of ethno-political conflicts in Guyana and suggests a number of strategies for resolution. These conflicts derive from the legacies of colonial policy in conjunction with the competitive power politics of middle-class political leadership. The colonial legacy represents the imposition of a system of inequalities in political and economic relationships. Such inequalities are reflected in the distorted or ethnically biased distribution of inherited political and economic positions in the country. Different approaches are required for different types of conflict situation. Most useful is the combination of third party mediation strategies, ranging from conciliation at the lower levels (facilitating intercommunication) to negotiation and consultation (mediators with skilled expertise) at the higher levels of conflict intensities.
The ethnic content of conflicts usually results from the escalation of conflicts derived from other sources, including political and economic demands, ideological struggle, foreign instigation or repressive state tactics. Nevertheless, since 1985 there has been a shift on the part of the Guyana state from repressive approaches to more openness to civil society participation. Other findings from the article are that:
- The pressures induced by the increasingly global capitalist system play a supplementary role in the emergence of ethno-political conflicts in Guyana
- Both major parties in Guyana – the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), and the People’s National Congress (PNC) – have common interests, independent of their ethnic basis of support. They share the belief that violent conflicts destroy each other’s political basis
- Formal mediation strategies in ethno-political conflicts have so far failed because government regimes used elitist approaches, while participants in the process often lacked an understanding of the situation itself
- The politically polarised nature of Guyanese society allows for minimal participation of civil society elements in conflict resolution initiatives
- The contention that violent conflict between Africans and East Indians is historically deep-rooted and represents a dividing line in the ethno-political situation in Uganda, is a myth.
Conflict resolution strategies need to address a Guyana conflict situation framed in terms of a convergence between resource and interest based conflicts, and to seek to resolve recurrent crises of political legitimacy and democratic stability. Thus, a de-escalation or mitigation of ethno-political conflict situations may be achieved. Other practical points and suggestions are:
- The ad hoc mediation approaches need to be transformed to an institutionalised mediation system providing ready facilitators and knowledgeable consultants
- Bottom-up approaches are more appropriate for the sustainable resolution of ethno-political conflict problems, since they are based on facilitating inter-communication and mutual understanding between people
- Lasting conflict resolution is more probable with the involvement of grass-roots or working class elements in the mediation process
- International mediation, via institutions like Caricom, the Carter Centre, and the Commonwealth Secretariat, may contribute to conflict de-escalation
- A power-sharing formula involving the significant political contenders might be necessary for the resolution of the recurrent political legitimisation crisis.
